|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 17:31:38 GMT
But on the other hand, as I noted above: We've long said "1882" - The old logo said it Jim Gregory said it was 1882 as you know  |
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on Dec 15, 2015 18:41:35 GMT
Long time no see…. but I couldn't miss the opportunity to comment on the logo designs.
Yes, the designs are average, done by a skilful yet average designer.
They do look better in white on a blue background, but some of them look even worse blue on white (3 and 4).
The designs seem to be too primitive and too reliant on assumptions what the fans want.
The 3/4 design tried to play around the hoops but ended being noodles. It just looks comical.
Number 2 is basically the way it was before, minus the banner. What I don't like is the font, Optima, they've moved from the current logo. It just doesn't fit. The earlier logo had a solid serif font that complimented the acronym style.
I voted for the first one although it looks unfinished and bleak. The Optima font doesn't work here as well. They should've paired QPR with something non-serif.
And it looks like poor design-editing leaving that fragment of a broken circle on the right - next to letter R.
Overall, it just looks like a compromise. I just can't imagine any fan 'loving' any of these versions. At best, it evokes the 'oh well, that'll do' impression.
And I don't like the 'EST' thing. Why? 1882 is enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 19:32:17 GMT
Long time no see…. but I couldn't miss the opportunity to comment on the logo designs. Yes, the designs are average, done by a skilful yet average designer. They do look better in white on a blue background, but some of them look even worse blue on white (3 and 4). The designs seem to be too primitive and too reliant on assumptions what the fans want. The 3/4 design tried to play around the hoops but ended being noodles. It just looks comical. Number 2 is basically the way it was before, minus the banner. What I don't like is the font, Optima, they've moved from the current logo. It just doesn't fit. The earlier logo had a solid serif font that complimented the acronym style. I voted for the first one although it looks unfinished and bleak. The Optima font doesn't work here as well. They should've paired QPR with something non-serif. And it looks like poor design-editing leaving that fragment of a broken circle on the right - next to letter R. Overall, it just looks like a compromise. I just can't imagine any fan 'loving' any of these versions. At best, it evokes the 'oh well, that'll do' impression. And I don't like the 'EST' thing. Why? 1882 is enough. If you want it wrong fine?  |
|
|
|
Post by steveb66 on Dec 16, 2015 8:01:59 GMT
3 and 4 just look like doodles and QPR is way too cryptic in those two.
2 is the best for me but I think 1 or 2 are OK and no more. Some of our fans obviously have a talent for this because I have seen some much better ones posted on the web.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 16, 2015 8:16:21 GMT
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on Dec 16, 2015 8:25:47 GMT
Long time no see…. but I couldn't miss the opportunity to comment on the logo designs. Yes, the designs are average, done by a skilful yet average designer. They do look better in white on a blue background, but some of them look even worse blue on white (3 and 4). The designs seem to be too primitive and too reliant on assumptions what the fans want. The 3/4 design tried to play around the hoops but ended being noodles. It just looks comical. Number 2 is basically the way it was before, minus the banner. What I don't like is the font, Optima, they've moved from the current logo. It just doesn't fit. The earlier logo had a solid serif font that complimented the acronym style. I voted for the first one although it looks unfinished and bleak. The Optima font doesn't work here as well. They should've paired QPR with something non-serif. And it looks like poor design-editing leaving that fragment of a broken circle on the right - next to letter R. Overall, it just looks like a compromise. I just can't imagine any fan 'loving' any of these versions. At best, it evokes the 'oh well, that'll do' impression. And I don't like the 'EST' thing. Why? 1882 is enough. If you want it wrong fine? I don't want it wrong, I want it right - what year then?  |
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on Dec 16, 2015 8:40:41 GMT
I think the best solution would've been a slight modernisation of the 90s logo. (Bottom right). Note the sans-serif which works better than the Optima font presented in the version # 2 -- and for me, there's just too much negative space (on the sides around the circle) left in the 'official' poll version. And, of course, I like the apostrophe  |
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Dec 16, 2015 9:33:33 GMT
Sabas, the club should have approached you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 16, 2015 9:43:35 GMT
If you want it wrong fine? I don't want it wrong, I want it right - what year then? 1886 for now Sab and I like the apostrophe |
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Dec 16, 2015 12:18:01 GMT
Sorry Sabas don't like yours either, but really dislike the proposed kindy football logos.
Pathetic attempt to please those that liked the previous round logo. It won't work Uncle Tone, we see straight through you.
Stuck with the U12s designed logo for who knows how many years. We must be the laughing stock of the Football League.
Not happy. Not happy at all
Just realised that it reminds me of Chelsea's bloody logo!
Even more unhappy!
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on Dec 16, 2015 12:38:14 GMT
Sorry Sabas don't like yours either, but really dislike the proposed kindy football logos. Pathetic attempt to please those that liked the previous round logo. It won't work Uncle Tone, we see straight through you. Stuck with the U12s designed logo for who knows how many years. We must be the laughing stock of the Football League. Not happy. Not happy at all Just realised that it reminds me of Chelsea's bloody logo! Even more unhappy! It wasn't designed by me. I just found this version on internet through Twitter. I guess someone involved in the process leaked a work-in-progress version that eventually evolved into # 2. Honestly, I don't like any of them either. It's just too simplistic, too safe, too compromised. The 'monoline' versions (as they call them) remind of a plate of spaghetti. I just can't shake that impression... P.s. I like Chelsea logo. It's a good example how something that retains heritage can be transformed into something modern. P.p.s. Yes, Chelsea are using Optima font as well. That's probably one of the similarities you've noticed. |
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Dec 16, 2015 14:09:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 16, 2015 20:57:28 GMT
Flashback  |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 16, 2015 20:58:43 GMT
Flashback -
QPR In the Community Trust 01/07/2011
CLUB TO UNVEIL ST JUDE'S PLAQUE Details of plaque unveiling to celebrate the 125th anniversary since St Jude's Institute and Christchurch Rangers merged to become QPR To commemorate the 125th anniversary since St Jude's Institute and Christchurch Rangers merged to become Queens Park Rangers, the Club are set to mark this milestone by the unveiling of a plaque at St Jude's Hall - QPR's original headquarters. The Club are organising an event as part of the unveiling, with fun activities, raffles and prizes for local families and QPR fans. The event will take place on Saturday 9th July 2011 between 1pm and 4pm at: St Jude's Hall, Ilbert Street, Queen's Park, London, W10. The plaque unveiling will take place at approximately 2pm. Special guests from the Club's past and present day will also be in attendance. Please note that there will be no alcohol served at this event. The QPR story began in 1882 in a newly-built residential estate of West London, with the formation of two local youth teams, St Jude's Institute and Christchurch Rangers.
St Jude's was set up for the boys of Droop Street Board School (now Queen's Park Primary) by Jack McDonald and Fred Weller, supported by the Revd. Gordon Young, whilst Christchurch Rangers was formed by George Wodehouse Snr.
Both teams amalgamated in 1886.Wodehouse had played in a match between the two sides and was watched by a friend of his, who suggested that a merger between the two Clubs would be a good idea. Queen's Park Rangers was the name chosen for the new Club, suggested by E.D Robertson because the members were based in the Queen's Park district of West London. www.qprcommunitytrust.co.uk/news_article/18.aspx |
|
Dufster
Neil Warnock
I say!
Posts: 548 
|
Post by Dufster on Dec 16, 2015 22:37:30 GMT
I must say I'd be happy for the current badge to stay.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Dec 16, 2015 22:40:42 GMT
I must say I'd be happy for the current badge to stay. Agree. Much better than any proposed one IMO |
|
|
|
Post by gladstoneparkranger on Dec 17, 2015 0:01:24 GMT
I must say I'd be happy for the current badge to stay. Agree. Much better than any proposed one IMO |
|
|
|
Post by gladstoneparkranger on Dec 17, 2015 0:10:35 GMT
Agree. Much better than any proposed one IMO The current one represents all that was wrong with prev owners .. Changed without consultation and looks all pretentious! Granted not great the options in that format but looks more QPR than our current plumage and bet Palace and Everton said similar when there badges were brought into future but kept soul of the emblem that is there club , just as kits change but hoops all the way round and prev badge is QPR . |
|
|
|
Post by steptoesson on Dec 17, 2015 1:26:38 GMT
Well I am going to disagree with most of you. I like both 1 and 2. Sabas said something about them being to simplistic. I think that they are simplistic is a good thing. People look at it and know straight away what it is and who it belongs to. the only thing I would change is the year. drop it all together and put our location in instead. London W12 would look better and shows the clubs roots are in London. As they are branding then that is more important than the year we was formed. As that is what it is all about is it not, branding and money, so tell people where we come from as well as who we are not the year we was formed.
The year we was formed can go on other merchandise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Dec 17, 2015 5:28:16 GMT
Mac put that old brass plate up on your twitter account, Uncle Tone might see it. I migt whack it up on my facebook account.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjqpr on Dec 17, 2015 8:56:53 GMT
I've always known the 1882 date seeing as that badge was the one we always had growing up... and do we not chant "since 1882"?
Anyway yes boo to the new designs even the current is better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 17, 2015 9:04:18 GMT
In one place: QPR In the Community Trust 01/07/2011CLUB TO UNVEIL ST JUDE'S PLAQUE Details of plaque unveiling to celebrate the 125th anniversary since St Jude's Institute and Christchurch Rangers merged to become QPR To commemorate the 125th anniversary since St Jude's Institute and Christchurch Rangers merged to become Queens Park Rangers, the Club are set to mark this milestone by the unveiling of a plaque at St Jude's Hall - QPR's original headquarters. The Club are organising an event as part of the unveiling, with fun activities, raffles and prizes for local families and QPR fans. The event will take place on Saturday 9th July 2011 between 1pm and 4pm at: St Jude's Hall, Ilbert Street, Queen's Park, London, W10. The plaque unveiling will take place at approximately 2pm. Special guests from the Club's past and present day will also be in attendance. Please note that there will be no alcohol served at this event. The QPR story began in 1882 in a newly-built residential estate of West London, with the formation of two local youth teams, St Jude's Institute and Christchurch Rangers. St Jude's was set up for the boys of Droop Street Board School (now Queen's Park Primary) by Jack McDonald and Fred Weller, supported by the Revd. Gordon Young, whilst Christchurch Rangers was formed by George Wodehouse Snr. Both teams amalgamated in 1886. Wodehouse had played in a match between the two sides and was watched by a friend of his, who suggested that a merger between the two Clubs would be a good idea. Queen's Park Rangers was the name chosen for the new Club, suggested by E.D Robertson because the members were based in the Queen's Park district of West London. www.qprcommunitytrust.co.uk/news_article/18.aspxQPR Official Site - The Club's History Queens Park Rangers Football Club was originally formed in 1882 by the old boys of Droop Street Board School. The boys were members of the St. Jude's Institute as they used this as the Club headquarters, and in the early days were known as St. Jude’s. They obtained the name of Queens Park Rangers when they merged with a team called Christ Church Rangers in 1886. They called themselves Queens Park Rangers because most of the players came from the district of Queen’s Park...." www.qpr.co.uk/club/history/potted-history/index.aspx#FjSFlRqRWk6eFhzS.99 |
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Dec 17, 2015 16:50:22 GMT
From the Offie NEW QPR CLUB CREST - VOTING DEADLINE EXTENDEDPUBLISHED 12:59 17th December 2015 by @qprfc Supporters given until December 31st to cast their vote ... Voting deadline on QPR's new club crest extended Club wants to give fans enough time to make decision EARLIER this week, we revealed details of how you can have your say on QPR's new club crest via our online voting poll. We've had over 3,000 responses to date, but we're going to extend the deadline by a week to allow supporters additional time to weigh up their decision, as we had in excess of 6,000 fans who participated in the initial crest survey, so ideally we would like to have a similar number of fans involved in this final process. In addition to the online vote, we'll be handing out leaflets at our fixture against Huddersfield Town on December 28th - with a new voting deadline of 5.00pm on December 31st. CEO Lee Hoos explained: "This is a really important issue for the club and its supporters, so we've taken the decision to extend the deadline. "There is a deadline for us to have the results in order to implement the crest for the 2016/17 season. However, I feel we have time to extend this process and still make the deadline. "I want the supporters to feel they have time to make a considered choice and I want to canvas as much of the fan-base as we possibly can." He added: "I'd encourage the Rangers fans to take their time in making their selection - I've changed my mind already a few times, so it's worth looking and looking again to ensure you make your vote count. "We want every fan to make a well-considered choice, so we can go with the majority and make the right choice for the future of the club." In the meantime, supporters can also view animations of how each of the four crests evolved. Read more at www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/qpr-crest-voting-deadline-extended-2856015.aspx#LAOTKoT86HsXq40M.99 |
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Dec 17, 2015 18:41:32 GMT
So we get more time to vote for this charade of a choice.
Where is the……...
'none of these' button?
Just noticed that QPR in the community on the blue plaque had…….
Queen's Park Rangers.
Well done Andy Evans, top bloke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Dec 17, 2015 21:43:39 GMT
Exactly, where is the none of these choice?
|
|
|
|
Post by jjqpr on Dec 18, 2015 16:17:59 GMT
To all the moaners out there... firstly at least they have tried to give us some say... secondly and most importantly there is literally no chance they could ever make a design EVERYONE is happy with, it's not possible. I prefer the current one to the one I grew up with in the 90's... yet most people hated it and what it stood for. I don't see how people can moan just accept the fact it's not possible to please everyone. Its not the first badge change and it won't be the last... are there not more important things to worry about?! |
|
|
|
Post by jjqpr on Dec 18, 2015 16:19:29 GMT
So we get more time to vote for this charade of a choice. Where is the……... 'none of these' button? It's called just don't vote if you don't like any of them... no-one is forcing you to! Why don't you design one you like, and then realise not everyone will like that either! |
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Dec 18, 2015 16:49:40 GMT
Well JJR, here's why I think we could have done better.
Here was an opportunity to do it properly. The fact that people write about it shows that people care about the badge.
Many people don't like the current one because of what it stands for and the Briatore era.
The current work has been done 'in house'. You can say that's great and it saved a load of money.
I'd say we waste so much money on player contracts for mercenaries that last a few seasons that it is criminal not to have experts that know what they are doing to give us a long term badge solution.
I've been in graphic design for 30 years and sat in enough market research groups where people say 'Design doesn't bother me' and then pick up a red can of Cola rather than a blue one. We are surrounded by design. Each one of us is a designer. The way we dress, the colour combination of trousers and jumper or style of shoes, every single day we design ourselves. We chose a purple chocolate wrapper to a yellow one.
We draw before we speak.
There was an opportunity for the QPR management to give us some genuine choices.
Different tones of blue
Different shapes of holding shapes
Different messages
Hoops
What we have seen is badges from the past….. made worse.
You are so right in saying that you can't please all of the people all of the time.
But at least giving people a genuine opportunity to review 4 distinctly different ideas was in my humble opinion an opportunity missed.
I'd have done it for free and I designed the UEFA Champions League.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjqpr on Dec 19, 2015 8:43:50 GMT
I agree with your points but if you had done 4 distinct design the spread could have still been 25% on each meaning 3/4 of the fan base would be unhappy... Some may bot have like any of them still. Did you contact the club to tell them you'd do something for free? I'm not saying for a second I like the designs ...from a design point of view i do prefer the current one... but as no design will be loved by 100% of the people I don't see much point in moaning. I voted number 2. It could be an opportunity missed, I hope you at least offered your services to the club? Well JJR, here's why I think we could have done better. Here was an opportunity to do it properly. The fact that people write about it shows that people care about the badge. Many people don't like the current one because of what it stands for and the Briatore era. The current work has been done 'in house'. You can say that's great and it saved a load of money. I'd say we waste so much money on player contracts for mercenaries that last a few seasons that it is criminal not to have experts that know what they are doing to give us a long term badge solution. I've been in graphic design for 30 years and sat in enough market research groups where people say 'Design doesn't bother me' and then pick up a red can of Cola rather than a blue one. We are surrounded by design. Each one of us is a designer. The way we dress, the colour combination of trousers and jumper or style of shoes, every single day we design ourselves. We chose a purple chocolate wrapper to a yellow one. We draw before we speak. There was an opportunity for the QPR management to give us some genuine choices. Different tones of blue Different shapes of holding shapes Different messages Hoops What we have seen is badges from the past….. made worse. You are so right in saying that you can't please all of the people all of the time. But at least giving people a genuine opportunity to review 4 distinctly different ideas was in my humble opinion an opportunity missed. I'd have done it for free and I designed the UEFA Champions League. |
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Dec 19, 2015 9:08:02 GMT
The services were offered maybe 10 times over the past 2 seasons!
It was interesting to see the interview of the CEO yesterday saying that there were some great designs rejected and the supporters committee drawn at random from season ticket holders had 2 branding experts that added great insights.
I have to say that I find it laughable that we are expected to believe that a professional designer was involved, given the quality of the output and that completely at random 2 'branding experts' were on the committee.
Perhaps he could advise 6 lottery numbers for tonight.
I offered my services again just yesterday saying I'd come up with 4 real alternatives by Thursday rather than have to choose poorer versions of old logos.
I did get a reply
'No'
|
|
